Focal Cystic Pancreatic Lesions: Assessing Variation in Radiologists’ Management Recommendations

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10100970

Large variation exists in the rate of recommendation for further imaging studies by radiologists in cases of focal cystic pancreatic lesions, even after controlling for key explanatory variables.

Purpose

To estimate the prevalence of focal cystic pancreatic lesions (FCPLs) among patients undergoing computed tomographic (CT) or magnetic resonance (MR) imaging at one institution and to examine any variation in radiologists’ recommendation practice pattern with regards to FCPLs.

Materials and Methods

Institutional review board approval was obtained for this retrospective HIPPA-compliant study. The requirement to obtain informed consent was waived. A cohort of patients with FCPLs was identified from radiology reports by using natural language processing. Patient-specific (ie, age, sex, symptoms, history of pancreatitis), radiologist-specific (ie, years of experience, area of expertise), and FCPL-specific (ie, size, location, septation, calcification, mural nodularity, pancreatic duct involvement, and presence of multiple cysts) variables were obtained. The outcome measure was whether a follow-up study was recommended. A logistic regression model was used to identify relative recommendation rates after controlling for key explanatory variables.

Results

Between January 1 and December 31, 2009, a total of 1067 FCPLs were identified in 765 patients. Prevalence rates ranged from 2.2% at CT to 15.9% at MR imaging. Radiologists recommended a follow-up imaging study in 23.7% of cases of a FCPL. A 2.8-fold difference in the rate of recommendation of further imaging existed across radiologists after controlling for explanatory variables such as lesion-, radiologist-, and patient-specific characteristics. A history of pancreatitis was associated with a nearly two-fold decrease in recommending further imaging.

Conclusion

FCPLs are common, and nearly one-quarter of radiology reports recommend at least one follow-up imaging study. Significant variation exists in the rate of recommendation for further imaging studies by radiologists, even after controlling for key explanatory variables.

© RSNA, 2011

References

  • 1 Kimura W, Nagai H, Kuroda A, Muto T, Esaki Y. Analysis of small cystic lesions of the pancreas. Int J Pancreatol 1995;18(3):197–206.
  • 2 Spinelli KS, Fromwiller TE, Daniel RA, et al.. Cystic pancreatic neoplasms: observe or operate. Ann Surg 2004;239(5):651–657.
  • 3 Zhang XM, Mitchell DG, Dohke M, Holland GA, Parker L. Pancreatic cysts: depiction on single-shot fast spin-echo MR images. Radiology 2002;223(2):547–553.
  • 4 Sachs T, Pratt WB, Callery MP, Vollmer CM The incidental asymptomatic pancreatic lesion: nuisance or threat? J Gastrointest Surg 2009;13(3):405–415.
  • 5 Edirimanne S, Connor SJ. Incidental pancreatic cystic lesions. World J Surg 2008;32(9):2028–2037.
  • 6 Fernández-del Castillo C, Targarona J, Thayer SP, Rattner DW, Brugge WR, Warshaw AL. Incidental pancreatic cysts: clinicopathologic characteristics and comparison with symptomatic patients. Arch Surg 2003;138(4):427–433.
  • 7 Visser BC, Yeh BM, Qayyum A, Way LW, McCulloch CE, Coakley FV. Characterization of cystic pancreatic masses: relative accuracy of CT and MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189(3):648–656.
  • 8 Procacci C, Biasiutti C, Carbognin G, et al.. Characterization of cystic tumors of the pancreas: CT accuracy. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1999;23(6):906–912.
  • 9 Wennberg JE. Practice variations and health care reform: connecting the dots. Health Aff (Millwood) 2004;(suppl Web exclusives):VAR140–VAR144.
  • 10 Sahani DV, Saokar A, Hahn PF, Brugge WR, Fernandez-Del Castillo C. Pancreatic cysts 3 cm or smaller: how aggressive should treatment be? Radiology 2006;238(3):912–919.
  • 11 Kalb B, Sarmiento JM, Kooby DA, Adsay NV, Martin DR. MR imaging of cystic lesions of the pancreas. RadioGraphics 2009;29(6):1749–1765.
  • 12 Martin DR, Semelka RC. MR imaging of pancreatic masses. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2000;8(4):787–812.
  • 13 Blaivas M, Lyon M. Frequency of radiology self-referral in abdominal computed tomographic scans and the implied cost. Am J Emerg Med 2007;25(4):396–399.
  • 14 Khalid A, Brugge W. ACG practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of neoplastic pancreatic cysts. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102(10):2339–2349.
  • 15 Tanaka M, Chari S, Adsay V, et al.. International consensus guidelines for management of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms and mucinous cystic neoplasms of the pancreas. Pancreatology 2006;6(1-2):17–32.
  • 16 Hutchins GF, Draganov PV. Cystic neoplasms of the pancreas: a diagnostic challenge. World J Gastroenterol 2009;15(1):48–54.
  • 17 Sidden CR, Mortele KJ. Cystic tumors of the pancreas: ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging features. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2007;28(5):339–356.
  • 18 Tanaka S, Nakao M, Ioka T, et al.. Slight dilatation of the main pancreatic duct and presence of pancreatic cysts as predictive signs of pancreatic cancer: a prospective study. Radiology 2010;254(3):965–972.
  • 19 Megibow AJ. Are we really closer to predicting the development of pancreatic cancer? Radiology 2010;254(3):642–646.
  • 20 Sistrom CL, Dreyer KJ, Dang PP, et al.. Recommendations for additional imaging in radiology reports: multifactorial analysis of 5.9 million examinations. Radiology 2009;253(2):453–461.

Article History

Received May 13, 2010; revision requested June 24; revision received September 30; accepted October 22; final version accepted October 27.
Published online: Apr 2011
Published in print: Apr 2011